Monday, August 29, 2016

Anthony Weiner Shouldn't Become Hillary Clinton's Problem, If His Wife Decides To Keep Him Her Problem Is Another Matter

It's not fair but that's not my fault but I think Huma Abedin's eternally assholish 12-year-old husband Anthony Weiner is going to inevitably harm her employability, at least as long as her work is with politicians who need to be elected.   If Anthony Weiner's latest sexting scandal turns into a big problem for Hillary Clinton, Abedin's boss, as the media is clearly trying to make it into one,  if it either endangers her electability or her effectiveness in office then, no matter how blameless she is for it, then I think someone has to make a choice.   It's none of my busines whether or not she chooses to stay with an asshole who is clearly not inhibited by considerations of how damaging his juvenile escapades have been and are, how he is dishonoring and shaming her to a world-wide audience, but if I were her boss I'd say that if she sticks with him then she should find work outside of politics.

It's too bad because from everything I've read about her Huma Abedin is remarkably talented and intelligent but it's not as too bad as her being married to a man who has, repeatedly, embarrased her and made things harder for the woman who employs her.   And it's really unfortunate, but a fact of life, that when her employer is Hillary Clinton the Republican loving media is going to throw everything against her that they can dig up or make up.  If there were a hundred such incidents in the Trump campaign, right now, the media would decide that was different.  NPR had a segment on with Cokie Roberts and Jonah Goldberg(!) this morning that was typical of that.  It's so funny how the American media's "both sides are to blame" always seems to come down with Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton always being more to blame for more than Republicans are.  That is the political and corporate media reality that Hillary Clinton has to operate in and which her staff must understand as a condition of their being part of her staff.  And so should their spouses, especially one like Weiner who destroyed his own political career through his assholish exhibitionism.

With Plenty To Apologize For, That Accusation Is Something Someone Like An Ignorant Yokel from New York City Would Make

"Maine is Missisippi (sic)north"

Um, well, if you overlook such things as it being the first state to vote in marriage equality AT THE BALLOT BOX,  having one of its two members of the House being Chellie Pingree who is among the most liberal members of Congress, things like that, well, not really.   Idiots from places like New York City who have only the vaguest sense of what life outside of their center of their universe is really like might know that we are suffering under a Republican-fascist governor, who was elected with the decisive help of a millionaire who ran vanity independent candidacies, splitting the opposition and so was elected without a majority of the votes in either election but they don't know much else.   

Considering some of the politicians they have contributed,  scummy, slimy guys like Rudy Giuliani, Ed Koch and lest anyone forget, Donald Trump, not to mention being the home of so much of the media that has enabled, no, encouraged American fascism to take hold, you can soak your head. 

Update:  LePage hasn't gotten the majority of votes in either of the state elections he's won.  He would never have won without the help of the millionaire spoiler, but that's what happens when some dopey liberals put in laws making it easy for such guys to run.  It seemed like such a liberal idea at the time.  Unfortunately, like so many of those ideas, it turned out to enable fascists.  And for a state such as yours that has elected the likes of George Pataki, who won three times with the backing of lots of NYC big shots like your illustrious Senator Al D'Amato, winning over Mario Cuomo in his first run, you can go soak your head, again.    

Oh, and, among other things I could add, Maine abolished the death penalty in the 19th century and has not reinstated it.   Even when LePage had Republicans in control of the legislature, he couldn't do that.  

Update 2:  I don't care what the non-readers of  Tiger Beat on the Delaware might appear to themselves to think about anything.   I can't imagine any of them were honors students given their non-reading habits and indifference to documentation.

Update 3:  Wow, you really didn't get the point about the death penalty and you live there.  It was one of George Pataki's big selling points with the people of New York State, reinstating the death penalty, it was one of his most important issues used against Mario Cuomo AND HE DID GET THE LEGISLATURE TO REINSTATE IT.   Fortunately, they did so in a form which the state courts later found to be unconstitutional but it wasn't because the majority of New Yorkers were opposed to reinstating it.

It is so funny that a guy from the backwoods of Maine would seem to know more about your recent elections than you do.  No wonder you figure my state is defined by that one thing, you don't even know what's going on where you live. 

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Hate Mail - 1

Who would sight-sing the Mikrokosmos?  

Well, if you open to page 4 you will read the account by the person it was first written for, Peter Bartok, in which he says.

His teaching program did not follow an accepted "piano school" technique.  At first I was to sing only.  .... In the course of our lessons he sometimes asked me to wait while he sat down at his desk, and I would hear only the scratching of his pen.  In a few minutes he would bring to the piano an exercise, or a short piece, that I was to decipher right away and then learn for our next lesson.

So were born some of the easier pieces in these volumes.  

So, if you bothered reading the front material in the New Definitive Edition of them, the answer would be, apparently, someone the composer taught them to.   I've followed his practice ever since that edition replaced the older one without Peter Bartok's account (Good, Lord, already almost thirty years ago!)  but with his father's foreword that mentions the desirability of the student singing the vocal pieces as they play.  The first two volumes make excellent early sight-singing and ear training exercises, especially if you play the part you're not singing.   I always teach fixed do in the form in which each flat, natural and sharp have a specific syllable assigned to them.  It's more useful and less confusing.

Einstein's Superior Understanding In His Essay On Racism 1946

I read this blog post by Trent Gillis this morning, most of it a short essay written by Einstein.  It is tempting to note that even as the great physicist was pointing out the injustice and irrationality of racism, many - though certainly not all - of the leading figures in biology were still supporting such ideas.  Scientific racism didn't die with the defeat of the Nazis, it took a short sabbatical and has been making a gradual comeback ever since.  Less than five years after the crimes of the Nazis started to be made public R. A. Fisher felt comfortable enough to assert, as part of a UNESCO study group that races were not equal and that it was futile to attempt to try to achieve political and economic equality due to that, even though he admitted that his declaration would defeat the entire purpose of trying to achieve equality.  Not too long after that the widespread private racism of many in biology, especially in genetics, would start being expressed openly and even, in evolutionary psychology, presented as science.  Even including some of the most basic of anti-Semitic assumptions which Nazism took as science.

Ah, but it said that going there was a temptation right now.   What I wanted to point out was this insightful passage.

What soon makes the new arrival devoted to this country is the democratic trait among the people. I am not thinking here so much of the democratic political constitution of this country, however highly it must be praised. I am thinking of the relationship between individual people and of the attitude they maintain toward one another.

Einstein was entirely right to elevate the "attitude" of democracy as it is expressed in daily relationships among people as more important and essential than the constitutional and legal apparatus. Without that attitude being common among The People, the words in those documents are just words.   That is something that the academics, the lawyers, the politicians and the professors and, worst of all, the mass media and what passes as the arts in media don't get or have lost sight of.  The People and their ideas, beliefs and practices are the only basis on which democracy can rest, not the legal doctrines and dogmas emanating from Ivy and Ivy equivalent law faculties and graduates.

Those so often derided, disdained, mocked "masses", The People are what all of it depends on first, middle and end.  You can hardly go a day in hearing and reading the news, of reading people online where someone doesn't mock the ignorant masses on their ignorance.  Newspapers and networks do stories on that theme with a remarkable regularity, it is clearly a point, AN ATTITUDE, they want to promote in the general public, that "the masses are asses".  As an aside, that the mass media does so, heedless of the fact that it is they who have taken up so much of the thinking time of said "masses" with mindless, false, misleading crap instead of information, never seems to enter into their self-regarded superior minds.

The collapse of confidence in public institutions in the United States, in our political institutions, is a direct result of a conscious campaign by snobs and elites to both dumb down the American People and to then, glorying in their own self-asserted superiority, mock the great unwashed, ignorant masses of humanity.  Democracy couldn't help but be destroyed in that process.  We won't get democracy back in even its highly imperfect form until both that dumbing down for profit and the conceited vainglorious attitude of elites is ended.  The People aren't so stupid that they don't realize they don't have to put up with those elites.  If there is one thing the past fifty years have shown, it is that they know when they're being insulted and they won't play along with the people who are doing that insulting.  The results aren't good.  Donald Trump is just one result of that. 

Hate Mail - Post Literacy Is The Problem Not Post Modernism

All I did was take what Steve Weinberg claimed to its logical conclusion. If you don't like that conclusion, your problem is with your shared ideology, not what I said it forced as a conclusion. 

What I noted in that post reposed yesterday was a logical conclusion based in what the celebrity atheist, nuclear physicist, Steven Weinberg said.  He said, in response to other atheists gathered at Sean Carroll's summit of celebrity atheist thinkers, things such as, "I think in the end we have to live with not having a moral philosophy that really works in a decisive way." and  "there  is no way of deciding moral issues on the basis of - well there is no way of deciding moral postulates which should govern our actions.  And in fact we don't have moral postulates that govern our actions when we behave morally. "

I took Steve Weinberg - often cited by atheists as an authority on the matter of morality - at his word,  I even noted that his assertion was an inescapable conclusion from the shared ideology of those in the discussion, materialist atheism.  If what he said is held to be true there is no moral absolute that - as his profession has made possible - even the conscious act of bringing about the extinction of life on Earth cannot be held under their ideological framing to be an act which is absolutely morally forbidden.

That fact is one which atheists have tried to squirm around ever since their ideological stand was first articulated, especially in its modern, scientific form.  Other celebrity scientist-atheists have stated the same thing.  Ernst Haeckel denied the immorality of even the, then, quite technologically possible intentional extermination of other racial groups by those he held were their superiors, it was part of his glorying in the "final triumph of materialist monism" which he held was the result of Darwin's theory of natural selection which he took for the final refutation of religious morality.  Richard Dawkins was even more explicit in his famous, or infamous declaration that;  In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

The citation of prominent atheists inside and outside of science who asserted that kind of thing can go on and on.  I'd certainly go next to Frederich Nietzsche who was the most honest about the logical conclusions of atheist materialism in philosophy and how that ideology must lead to the destruction of all morality, replaced by the very human manifestation of physical force in stronger people taking advantage of their superior ability to apply force and force weaker people to serve their purpose or to destroy them respecting no moral prohibition on their ability to do so.  That is the real, ground floor level holding of Darwinism as applied to the human species and human societies in which we live.

And from Nietzsche I'd go to his admirers among atheist political thinkers who agreed with him, even such figures as Emma Goldman* whose antipathy for religion led her to champion a man whose philosophical conclusions supported strong-man dictatorship and the oppression of weaker people not her rather badly thought out anarchism.  As I said in the first sentence of my piece, atheist materialism is the universal acid that eats up all of morality, it also eats up all other intellectual distinctions, when applied to the idea of human thought, it even eats up all of science and even its own ideological status as a truth.  Materialism is the only ideology that must be false if it is to be true, it cannot even maintain the most basic, definitional status of logical cohesion if taken to its logical conclusion.

You might not like it that amorality is the logical result of believing in atheist materialism but that conclusion has been reached BY ATHEIST MATERIALISTS OF HIGH INTELLECTUAL STATURE over and over again.  All I did was explicitly state an extreme but logically inescapable conclusion that would have to be drawn BY TAKING THEM AT THEIR WORD AND SERIOUSLY.

You can check what I said if you don't like the basis for what I concluded, you can check my transcript against what Weinberg said.  You can even argue that he was wrong, though I defy you to point to any argument Rebecca Goldstein or any of the others made at Carroll's atheist weekend jamboree that definitively refutes Weinberg's logic given atheist materialism taken as THE given, as they all did.  But you'd have to do what the block-headed rearrangers of their prejudices at Duncan's didn't do, read what I wrote and follow up on the links.

* I don't think there is a figure held to be of the left who has fallen farther in my esteem than Emma Goldman in the past decade.  That is due to having the ability to have easy access online to full texts written by her.  What can seem so lucid and so persuasive in excerpted sentences tumbles into an angry, irrational and even dishonest muddle in so much of what she wrote. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOTHER OF READING THOSE THINGS IN CONTEXT TO SEE WHAT SHE WAS REALLY SAYING AND IF WHAT SHE SAID HELD TOGETHER.  That idea would seem to have come to seem odd to a lot of people who have been to college in the last half-century.

I think her life and career, her waste of her brilliance and passion is an excellent warning of the futility of anarchism as a political theory.   I think her taking that path into wasting her life - as even she came to suspect she had done - was through her materialist-atheist ideology which, in turn, was an emotional choice made because she hated religion so much.  You can try to discern what her hatred of religion was based in, including her obvious disdain for anything she held to not be intellectually reputable and the status as a thinker that she so obviously craved but the results are undeniable that she wasted her life advocating an irrational ideology refuted by logic and observation of reality, based on moral stands which that ideology would have to conclude were delusions.  As the futile attempts of the few atheists in the discussion linked to show, they couldn't really refute Weinberg from the basis of their ideological framing.  You can't achieve morality through materialism, you have to exit materialism to even make assertions of its reality.  As can be seen at Sean Carroll's convention of big atheist thinkers, they didn't really like what their ideology leads to. Only a sociopath or a psychopath would.  I think that's really why Nietzsche went nuts.  But, as we see in this election season, sociopaths and psychopaths can have a really good chance of achieving political power even in a democracy.  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. etc. are even better examples of where this can lead in real life.


Saturday, August 27, 2016

Saturday Night Radio Drama Second Feature - Midnight Cab - The Child Holding A Dove

Saturday Night Radio Drama - Harold Pinter - A Kind of Alaska

Judi Dench and Harold Pinter 
I won't say anything about this except it has rather haunted me since I decided not to post it.   

Though not exactly a radio play.  From Michael Mantler's setting of a text by Pinter

Around Me Sits the Night

 From the album, Silence, an adaptation of the play by Harold Pinter

     words by Harold Pinter
     (an adaptation of the play 'Silence')

     Robert Wyatt  (voice, percussion)
     Kevin Coyne 
(voice )
     Carla Bley 
(voice, piano, organ)
     Chris Spedding 
     Ron McClure 


Michael Mantler has a way with these kinds of texts. 


Hate Mail

How stupid is it to expect me to get upset about what some of Duncan's rump of dolts say about me when the most they've ever read of anything I write is the clipped and misrepresented passages that one of their more vapid and dishonest "brain trust" buddies posts there. 

Why would anyone care what such lazy, superficial people thought about anything?   If they wanted to make me upset they could read the whole thing and come up with factual or logical refutations of what was said.  "I don't like it" and "You're a stupid-head" don't worry me, at all. 

Atrios maintains one of the bigger wastes of time on the internet considered to be of the left.   I know, I wasted a lot of time there before 2012.   But not as much as some others did. The getting got good there about a decade ago. 

Dušan Bogdanović's Polyrhythmic and Polymetric Studies Are A Work of Genius

I had the chance, this morning, to look through Dušan Bogdanović's Polyrhythmic and Polymetric Studies, both the first section of exercises and the etudes in the second section and I've got to say that it strikes me as the best thing I've ever seen of its kind.  The range of polyrhythms is much smaller than those treated in another fine series of exercises and studies,  Polyrhythms, A Musician's Guide by the jazz drummer Peter Magadini, but Bogdanović's melodic treatment of them has an added layer of musical substance and consideration.  I think both books are essential for anyone who reaches the level of playing music containing varied and extended polyrhythms and polymeters (they aren't exactly the same things) or anyone who wants to master them for use in improvisation (impromptu composition) or composition (frozen improvisation).   Both of those works are miles and miles ahead of Paul Hindemith's similar exercises in his famous book, Elementary Training For Musicians.  If and when I'm ready to take students again I will probably adapt some of them for keyboard, though I'm not up to or arrogant enough to try to transcribe the etudes.  Not sure they'd work very well on keyboard, especially piano.  Maybe on a clavichord, though.  Hope that idea annoys a certain someone. As I said, I have to have my fun, too.

Here is a doctoral dissertation by Michael J. Morey on the Polyrhythmic and Polymetric Studies, to get your interest up.   Youtubes of three of the etudes were posted below last Tuesday if you want to hear some of them.

I'm Very Sick Today So Here's A Repeat Likely To Annoy Those Who Need Annoying. I've got to have my fun, too.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Why Materialism and Atheism Are Compatible With The Interests of the 1% And Entirely Incompatible With Liberalism

The universal acid of atheism that Steve Weinberg poured on the entire literature of atheist as well as religious assertion of morality is best observed by listening to the entire discussion at Sean Carroll's atheist confab.

Here is my imperfect attempt to transcribe what I think is the most telling part of the "bad religion" guy's destruction of even the most general of moral principles, as he is, in the atheists' own terms, destroying their materialistic explanations of why that is right.

... There are competing things which are all good like happiness and truth.  For example, we sacrifice some happiness when we accept the truth that we're not going to have life after death.  Should we tell other people that they're not going to live after they die?   It probably will reduce their happiness on the other hand truth has a value of its own how do you balance truth and happiness there isn't any algorithm for balancing that.   I think you just have to accept that there is  no postulate that allows you to judge how much happiness you're willing to give up for how much truth. 

Even people who accept all this will say, all right we're not going to agree on what is the good but at least we can agree on the fundamental principle of morality that something like Rawls original condition [I think he meant "Original Position"]  that we should not treat other people worse than we treat ourselves. Rebecca [Goldstein] was saying something like this that everyone equally deserves whatever is good, happiness or whatever it is.  That's not the way I feel either.   And I think it's probably not the way most of you feel if you think about it because. I could probably increase the total amount of happiness by making my family live on rice and beans and live in a one room apartment and just barely keep enough money to keep us alive and healthy and send all of the rest of the money to poor parts of the world where it would do to me.  I'm not going to do that I'm not going to ....  and I well, I'm not confessing immorality.  I'm saying that my moral feelings tell me I should be loyal to my family.

Similarly when my university tries to recruit a bright young star in physics I suppose I could calculate,  well,  he could do more good for some other university and the greater good would imply we shouldn't go after him let some other university go after him. I don't care, I care about my university I'm loyal to my university similarly.  So there loyalty is a value it's not an absolute value I wouldn't cause, like Edward the Third,  I wouldn't cause the hundred years war to advance the interests of my family.  But it is one of these things where we have no algorithm for balancing loyalty against distributive justice.

And I think we have to live with that.  I think we have to live with the fact that although we can reason and try to uncover what our moral feelings are.   And if we get into that I think a very good example would be arguing about abortion ...  maybe I'll come back to that in the discussion.  

We can reason, the reasoning uncovers how we feel morally and perhaps allows us to identify areas of agreement so we can cooperate with each other and bring about what we want. 

I think in the end we have to live with not having a moral philosophy that really works in a decisive way.  I think we have to live the unexamined life.  I think this is part of the tragedy of the human condition just like we have no absolute way of determining that Mozart is better than Led Zeppelin we feel it but it's not something that we can argue,  we can rationally show.  We have to live with the fact that...  this came up yesterday.... when we discover the fundamental laws of physics from which all in some sense follows, that all other principles follow,  we won't know why they're true.  This is something that we have to accept, that the position of human beings is tragic and part of the tragedy,  that there  is no way of deciding moral issues on the basis of - well there is no way of deciding moral postulates which should govern our actions.  And in fact we don't have moral postulates that govern our actions when we behave morally. 

I'll start by pointing out that it is the moral deficiency of Weinberg's ideology, materialistic atheism, that is at the base of his program of destruction.  It is, as Rebecca Goldstein points out later, unrealistic and rather useless in dealing with the problem of how people behave, though I think her natural selection based attempt is totally unsuccessful, as well.  It doesn't stand up to Weinberg's attack based on their shared framing.  When Weinberg said, "we have to live with not having a moral philosophy that really works in a decisive way," he was, I believe unwittingly, pointing out why we can't possibly live with his intellectual pose in real life, because it will never work to produce moral behavior and prevent the horrible disasters that his preferred framing of familial and professional loyalty bring about, continually.

As in my update in my post  the other day, you should compare Weinberg's statements to those of Jesus and think seriously as to which ones would produce the worst of family based plutocracies, oligarchies, crime families, and other aristocracies,  corrupt institutions, unequal distribution of goods,  material inequality and the political, legal and societal inequalities that are necessary for that.   And you should ask which is actually compatible and incompatible with politically effective liberalism.

Weinberg's substitute for morality is far more supportive of the worst of Republican policy than anything Jesus said on the subject*, it is a secularized formulation of what Jesus said which Weinberg is arguing against, using the pose of a lack of absolute postulates for those things he throws his acid on while refusing to do the same with those he favors, physics, even as he grants they also lack the same thing he calls absolute knowledge.  His "competing goods" of loyalty, truth, etc. are no more founded in his ideological framing than do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

That universal acid of insisting on the artificial creation of algorithms and postulates such as those in mathematics and physics before you won't tell lies beneficial to yourself or to betray even those closest to you works on those quite nicely.  I have not noted that scientists are especially loyal to their spouses and children of first marriages, such as Carl Sagan, though I suspect that if you could do a quantitative analysis,  professional self-interest to your university department makes that stand up a bit better.

That Weinberg reassures us that his refusal to accept any kind of moral absolutes wouldn't lead him to start a Hundred-Years-War only shows that he's a conventional senior faculty member at an American university.   They are mostly rather a contented lot who don't aspire to make war, except when their meal ticket is threatened.  Though, again considering the role that the often asserted atheist-majority of physicists played in producing nuclear, atomic and massively destructive "conventional" armaments during his lifetime, you don't want to rely too heavily on them being uniformly otiose and even mostly harmless.  That there is nothing in what's left of his program of destruction of morality to keep a more ambitious, modern day Macbeth in science from killing hundreds of millions is certainly more relevant than his personal lack of desire to do so.   Sam Harris, as I'll remind you, has called for that as a rational consideration and in a similar kind of calculation as something that might substitute for "the good", which would last a day and not a hundred years.

A liberal who thinks hard about this won't find anything in materialism to support their liberalism, if their liberalism is a matter of the moral obligation to do justice in the world, real equality, material, social, political and legal, and the preservation and advancement of rights.   When someone chooses the ideological position of atheism, materialism, scientism, there isn't even anything that could make the entire destruction of the biosphere and the eventual extinction of human and all other life on the planet an absolute act of immorality if an atheist, so able,  choose temporary self-interest over the continuation of life, itself.  You need to exit the framework that is materialist atheism to assert why they shouldn't.

*  For example, from Matthew, the continual insistence of Jesus that you had a moral obligation to act morally outside of your family and inner circle, that even the gentiles and tax collectors and such were nice to their family and friends. The elite 1% are the relevant modern day equivalent.   Weinberg is saying there is no reason for people such as those at Carroll's discussion group to act any better than they do and he, from an atheist, materialist and scientistic viewpoint, successfully destroys all of their attempts to make natural selection come up with a reason for him to not do just what he wants to.  And he's considered something of an expert on such things among pop atheists, frequently presented as such, one who is constantly being thrown in other peoples' faces on these issues.

Friday, August 26, 2016

" You never post standards"

I do sometimes.  Here

Art Blakey And The Jazz Messangers 1958 A Night In Tunisia 

Drums: Art Blakey
Trumpet: Lee Morgan
Sax: Benny Golson
Piano: Bobby Timmons
Bass: Jymie Merritt

Here's another one



Dušan Bogdanović - Blues

Denis Azabagić, guitar

Cluelessness Made Simels - Two Comments

steve simelsAugust 26, 2016 at 5:36 PM

BTW, are your neighbors avoiding you because of your porn obsession?

I would, if I were them.

The Thought CriminalAugust 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM

Oh, are you saying there's something wrong with people who consume porn? Yes, I think you unwittingly did just say that, as you unwittingly say everything, including "and" and "the". Why, Simps, you are agreeing with me without even being aware of it. How truly hilarious that is, and here you think I'm humorless. 

Update:  Oh, yeah, I forgot, feel free to avoid me from now on. Feel entirely free to do that. 

Using Kitty Genovese - "Where is all this coming from?"

Where it's coming from is the reaction to a post I did exactly one week ago in which I documented just a tiny fraction of the kind of pathological self-hatred of gay boys and men, setting up a hierarchy of "alpha men, gay men" really Nietzschian "supermen" types who, by their superior strength, sociopathy, and, very occasionally, superior intelligence, are encouraged to seduce and oppress, abduct, rape, torture, humiliate, degrade, insult, and generally abused what are presented as inferior boys and men for the sexual gratification as self-aggrandizement of said "alpha men" all of it as found in gay porn available for free consumption by anyone on the web.   And you will find every aspect of fascistic and Nazi role playing, white supremacist psychosis and whatever other depraved aspect of human thought or history that can be mixed into the stinking mess and sold with sadistic porn images, gifs and videos, as gay porn.  I will repost that original piece below this.

I am a gay man who has the radical idea that every gay man, every person who falls under the LGBT acronym,  every straight woman who doesn't, in fact every single person in the world, deserves entirely better treatment than that.  And when I say "ENTIRELY BETTER" I mean in every single way.  I think everyone deserves to have sexual relationships of the highest kind which will be an equal experience of love, affection, committed caring and honest fidelity.  I think that Lesbians and gay men deserve to have truly equal same-sex marriages, equal to the best of straight marriages of equally practiced and experienced love, affection, committed caring and honest fidelity.  I don't think fighting for the right to reproduce the worst kind of straight marriage would be worth the effort of anyone.   But that and entirely worse is being sold through porn in its idiotically enabled and ever worse form, encouraging the worst that any sick mind can encourage in other sick minds and those who can be enticed by that kind of fantasy to practice ever more degraded, ever less loving and affectionate, ever more hating and indifferent, uncaring, dishonest sexual acts by them.

You can't have both, the best, most moral sexual relationships, an expression of equality, of respecting equal rights, the dignity of each other embodying the moral obligation to treat everyone that way can't co-exist with the regime of the kind of pornography I'm talking about.  They are mutually exclusive, both ways of thinking, both ways of acting cannot exist in the same mind without damage to the better of them, both programs of behavior cannot be encouraged in the same society without damage to the better, never mind the best of it which we might aspire to.  Individuals might be able to sustain such a duality in appearance but it will be at a cost to their front of virtue maintained while their worst part is undamaged and will come to corrupt even what appears to the world to be good.  The same is true for a society, perhaps even more so through the powers of magnification.

When Jimmy Carter was mocked for his statement that he "had sinned in his heart", making reference to what Jesus said about the consequences of seeing other people as merely sexual objects instead of the full human beings, the full living beings they are, it showed how far the American society was on the road to this kind of thing. 

The lie told by the professional porn promoters in the media, the legal profession, such "social scientists" as they could pay to push their lies is that porn and the industrialization of sex for profit was not only not harmful but an alleged benefit to society, is a lie. It is a lie which, through the basest of coercion and corruption has become the required, de rigeur framing of this issue in what passes as respectable thought these days.

Of course feminism, in even its earliest phases, knew that was a lie due to the experience of women who had to fight against sexual objectification as the most basic aspect of their struggle for equality, just as black people had to most directly address the forms of objectification that were the substance of their inequality.  The aspects of the inequality of gay men was more directly done primarily through our sexual natures and, so, the mixture of that with the huge burden of internalized self-loathing and hatred which burden us could easily create this kind of pathology.   Lesbians, being women as well as defined by their sexuality had to deal with both forms of oppression and that informed their struggle for equality.  Gay men, being men, are, perhaps, more prone to have the same expectations of unequal relationship that can be the worst aspect of many straight sexual relationships.   The kind of thing I am dealing with here plays off of those vicissitudes of gay male identity as men who are attracted to men but men who have been, in so many cases, raised with all of the same screwed up expectations of inequality and unequal benefits from sex that are taught in the wider society and the media. No two groups are discriminated against in exactly the same way, each struggle for equality will have its own aspects peculiar to that group as well as features which are common to all.

It's all a lot more complex than the simplistic, reductionist program of making general absolute statements and facile arguments can admit to.  Journalism and its advocacy seldom practices the kind of depth that you need to get past the slogans, the lies, the deceptions, the inadequate and dishonest framing of this issue just as it seldom got real feminism, creating a phony substitute for it for easy and quick sale.  The results are the backlash against real equality for women and the increasingly pathological sex lives people are encouraged to have because objectification is easier and more profitable than relationships of equal love, affection, support and commitment.  And the sale of the cheap imitation, the gaudy knock-off results in what I've been writing about for the past week.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Hate Mail - Tell Us Which Of These Things Being Sold With Sex On Porn Sites This Month Are Compatible With Democratic Morals

Filthy 卐 Brutal 卐 White

Reblog if you want it Unsafe Insane and Non-Consensual 

via Degradation and Destruction 

Drugged, raped, and pozzed [to be intentionally infected with HIV]

Yeah, we make snuff movies glad you could come over tonight.

Rape me like a faggot 

Superior white men

This site is dedicated to the restoration of the rights of the straight white man that have been stolen by faggots over time

Live your fantasies [That one comes right after encouraging raping and killing a young "man" who looks about 12]

Those are accompanied with porn photos, gifs, videos, that are intended to sell the messaging with sex.

And that's just on one site.  Tell me why letting this stuff be posted online, where any psychopath can get their worst inclinations encouraged with sexual imagery is good for democracy or how any prosecutor or judge couldn't figure out that it's encouraging fascism, racism, violent domination, harm, rape and murder.  Or  why you are afraid that coming to that would endanger the right to encourage the opposites of those?  .

The lie that we aren't capable of regulating those decisions by courts and so we MUST allow this kind of stuff, and, believe it or not, far worse, to be considered to have the right to be distributed to the susceptible, is so willfully stupid that you have to be even more willfully stupid to pretend you really believe that.   Somehow, the Franklin Roosevelt administration, with all of its enormous advances, the advances in civil rights during the 1950s and early 60s happened in a country where the distribution and sale of that stuff would have been illegal and gotten you a prison term, and yet democracy was advancing during that period.   It's in the period when the Supreme Court permitted its distribution without restriction that has seen the destruction of civil rights progress, the corruption of democracy, the putsch that stole the presidency and the elevation of a TV created fascist strong-man to be within one woman from the presidency and the ability to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will obliterate democracy.

You people are total fools if you can't see the problem.  I don't want to be part of any "left" that pushes lies like that.

Post script:  I didn't realize until yesterday the relevance of that song, Small Circle of Friends to what I was talking about.  Thinking about that Phil Ochs song that begins with an evocation of the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese  but, in its iconic treatment focusing on the supposed urban anonymous indifference of those who heard her being killed, as first read about in the New York Times.  Ochs and the media, then and now, ignore the facts of what led the man who killed her to believe he should do what he did, that that was permissible, that he had a large stash of straight pornography presenting women as objects for the use of men found with him when he was arrested for breaking, entering and theft.   The extent to which him having that stash of porn tipped off the police that he might have been involved in the sexual murder of several women, including Kitty Genovese, is certainly worth thinking about.  They certainly made the connection.  I would imagine they were used to seeing rapists, sex murderes having stashes of porn and that having one might be an indication of what to suspect.  That its relevance went over the head of Ochs, to the extent that he, later in the song presents a porn publisher's prosecution as another instance of injustice on par with the others in the song.  That isn't a surprise, the lefty media had been pushing that line for more than a few decades, already.   Those guys, who, no doubt, believed themselves to be more sophisticated than police detectives, didn't seem to get a glaringly relevant aspect of the case and what information it carried.  How its relevance could be denied and that denial could be pretended to be credible also carries a lot of information but about how willfully dishonest the media, mostly men but with a few women, are about this.

It would take several more years before the second-wave feminists pointed out that presenting people as objects in pornography had real consequences, for the women so used and for the general society as men, so informed and encouraged, treated women like objects for their use.  The men of the media retaliated rather fast painting that insight of feminism in about the worst and most dishonest of lights, including the entertainment industry.   Feminism would have made it harder to crank out the same kind of crap they'd relied on to make money for a long time, its writers, directors, producers, would have had to have learned entirely new ways of writing and, worse, they'd have had to have thought about a situation that, still, largely, is for the benefit of men.  It certainly was harder and more complex than would fit into a preachy protest song of the period. 

They used Kitty Genovese for their own purposes and still do without caring much about what it was that led the man who killed her to do what he did, what he did to other women, what is done to millions of other women and children and men who can be subjected to someone with a physical advantage and the idea that they are entitled to use them and dispose of them as they like.    It's easier to make up stuff about the neighbors and concentrate on that, instead. They don't even bother with the other women, just the one the New York Times used.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Dušan Bogdanović - Book of the Unknown Standards

Adrian Martinez, guitar

I've become interested in hearing as much of Dušan Bogdanović's music as I can find.  Luckily, he wrote a lot and transcribed a bit too.

Hommage a Federico Mompou

Christopher Colucci, guitar.

This is the second of the "Easier Polymetric Studies", Bogdanovic's writing of real contrapuntal textures for solo guitar is one of the most interesting things about his music.  The independence of the voices can make it sound like more than one guitar is playing, at times.

We Need A Second Wave of Second Wave or The New Speak c. 2016 Is The Same As The New Speak c. 1966

So, your claim is that the fact that the man who murdered Kitty Genovese and at least two other women, raped and brutalized others, when he was arrested, had a stash of straight porn in his car is of no bearing on trying to figure out what made him do what he did.  What motivated him, what empowered him to ignore any idea that he didn't have a right to do that.  Yeah, typical 60s era , pseudo-liberal double-speak as pushed by the media industry and the "free speech - free press" lawyers in the employ of said industry.  And the "liberals" who were a lot more wedded to being groovy than to something like equality and the moral obligation to respect equal rights.

I think that we're really way over-due for a second wave of second wave feminism in its most brutally logical, brutally honest and brutally insistent forms.  The left went stupid for the crap that shoved it aside.  I'll name names, almost all of them from the lefty side of the scribbling profession, pretty much anyone who took up "First-amendment absolutism" as a motto. 

We really need a list of sex murderers and their consumption of porn and their other influences.  Primary evidence in this argument which is hardly ever considered.   

Update:  Well, maybe if you were an LGBT person you wouldn't think it was unimportant.  Or a straight woman.  As I say below, straight, white, men often don't see life from the perspectives those not so privileged do.   I would imagine straight, white men are about the least likely of people who would a. have to worry about being abused or murdered in a sexual manner, b. would be in the habit of considering that a possibility for themselves.  That would take an act of empathetic imagination that straight, white men so often consider a sign of effeminacy and wouldn't catch themselves dead practicing. 

Update 2:  Don't bother telling me what Duncan's Dimwits say about things they don't read.  Especially the real dim bulbs like Tlaz and Skeptic Tank.   Nothing much has happened over there since that walk on part on West Wing was alleged to be Duncan Black went to his head and he figured he didn't have to do any work any more. 

Hate Mail - "Why Don't You Just Not Look At It"

How typical of the preening, narcissistic, materialist-atheist, pseudo-liberal to consider what I objected to in the promotion of internalized hatred and the bashing, humiliation and abuse of gay boys and men as if it were a mere matter of personal distaste for something, ignoring the fact that what is promoted actually does harm real people, whether or not you see it or know the people so abused.  No, merely not looking and ignoring that this is being promoted and, beyond any rational ability to deny it, modeling the behavior of people through appealing to both their narcissistic, egotistical feelings of supremacy and finding sexual arousal in hurting other people is too easy and entirely inadequate.

This is the American Firster way of dealing with the advocacy and the practice of fascistic violence somewhere out of sight, treat it as if the personal comfort of those bothered by it was the paramount consideration for you to have, pretending that it isn't there.  We're talking about the abuse of real people in real life, not going to a bad movie or listening to a bad dance band.  Though, considering the content of what's being objected to, the egotism of it, perhaps its not surprising that its champions would consider that to be a rational or adequate response to it.

If I were going to deal with only what's easy, what is not problematic, the common received consensus I wouldn't bother writing to post it, at all.   If I were going to do that there wouldn't be any point to it because that's already done in things that are published for profit, either to sell magazines or by those who put up ads and links to Amazon.   But, really, for someone who thinks the way to deal with things you don't like is to not read them, you spend a lot of time here looking at stuff you don't like and whining that it's been said.

I don't want my LGBT family members, including myself,  to act in the ways taught and encouraged by pornography, or the straight ones.   I don't want any of them abused and used in that way.  The difference between us might be I don't want anyone to either be destroyed in that way or to be the people who give into any encouragement to act that way strongly enough to look at that awful stuff to know what's being advocated.  Not people I merely know about, not people who I don't even know are alive and at risk for that.   It's not all about us.  It's not all about me.   It's certainly not all about you.

Update:  Let me guess, when Phil Ochs sang "A Small Circle of Friends" you thought the guy explaining his indifference really had a valid point.   That's essentially what you're arguing this is about, its OK because only the people it's going to hurt and their small circle of friends need to care about it.    And it's exactly the attitude to that the post-feminist "left" including so many "feminists" have gotten seduced into whenever sex is involved.  In fact Ochs got suckered into it by the parts of the media that wanted to peddle smut - with no concern for real people whose lives were destroyed by that industry - as you can hear from the lyrics.  It was such a groovy position to hold in the later 60s, before those second-wave feminists ruined the boys' fun.  Hey, he wasn't someone who was being pimped to whoever wanted to beat him up while they  corn holed him, infected him, wore away his soul or crushed it.  So much for the educational value of pop music.   Maybe the latter days of Ochs' life, before his suicide, were worn away by the hypocrisies and idiocies of materialism posing as an adequate substitute for real liberalism. 

I wonder why Phil Ochs' creative imagination didn't extend to wondering how the man who stabbed Kitty Genovese got the idea that it was OK to do that to women, how that was and is a predictable result of seeing women as objects that men can do with what they like, exactly the kind of thing that pornography teaches.  When Winston Moseley had been arrested for theft he had a stash of pornography in his car. 

But maybe partying with guys like William Kunstler diverted him from making that intellectual and personal connection.   I remember those times really well.  Boys didn't think much about the consequences for women unless something like reading about it in The Times forced them to and The Times didn't cover it much.  Straight boys were pretty much a small circle of friends interested in what interested them.  Even the ones who sang about that in their artistic life as a lefty protest singer-songwriter.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Encouraging The Hatred, Oppression and Destruction of Gay Boys and Men Isn't Any Better Than Gay Bashing Especially When It's Sold Through Sex - Hate Mail

Encouraging pathological sexuality among men, the encouragement of pathological narcissism, selfishness, egomania as sexual dominance is behind every rape, every act of using sex to harm someone else, every sexual murder, the rape of children, etc.  That's as true when the man so encouraged is gay as when he is straight and might focus his domineering hatred on women or LGBT people.  The added feature of internalized hatred when it is encouraged in gay men, through pornography, only adds to the pathological nature of it.  The lives of gay men aren't there for the entertainment of would-be sophisticated straight people who like to impress each other with their not being shocked at things they hope will be found generally shocking.   The lives of gay men aren't there for the free speech, free press industry to use to enable their rich backers to get to peddle ever more pathological encouragement to act in those ways.  

When the old, white, straight theologian Walter Brueggemann was asked about the morality of gay sex, he, very impressively and very tellingly answered in terms of the generalized use of sex as an occasion to sin among straight as well as LGBT people.  I thought it was the most impressive answer to the question I've seen, taking into account the very common use of all sex as an occasion to do evil and to call that evil what it is, evil.  It was so much more realistic, so much more sophisticated, so much more liberal than the pseudo-sophisticated common received wisdom that when you can call something sex, that means acknowledging the evil done through it and often obviously practiced through it is not to be mentioned, that when you call it "sex" that means that any evil done from it i not allowed to be acknowledged as evil.  Today, all too often, gay sex is the hate that you dare not name for fear of being considered uncool and unsophisticated.  Only, and especially when you are a gay man to deny that is to deny one of the primary venues of spreading hate of gay men and others, the encouragement to oppression, harm, degradation, humiliation, maiming and death, even of murder.  

Mixing messed up feelings of sex in it doesn't make it one bit less bad than when the most violent of straight gay bashers do exactly the same thing without any sexual arousal being involved.  Tumblr is a far larger, far more extensive, far more influential venue of disseminating the hatred of LGBT people than the notorious Westboro Baptist Church of Fred Phelps and his tribe of vicious haters.  I don't link to either straight or gay-porn sites that incite hatred and violence but the messaging, down to the URLs of some of them are indistinguishable, except that the alleged "Baptists" dirty the name of Jesus in their blasphemous depravity.

Trying to white-wash it by saying "First Amendment" is a lie, it is a dangerous lie that has been turned into the law of the land by the media industry using the language of civil liberties, sold by peddlers trained at Ivy League law schools to a very willing judiciary, either through the stupid idea that they were promoting liberalism or through the very sly motive of using the rulings that resulted to allow the corruption of the political process in favor of Republican-fascism.   Once the corporate thugs on the Supreme Court figured out they could throw the anti-porn folks over the side and use "free speech" to enable billionaires to lie in the media, they took that opportunity every chance they could.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Dušan Bogdanović - Polyrhythmic and Polymetric Studies: I. Molto ritmico

II.  Con meditazione

III. Rubato, appassionato

Angelo Marchese, guitar

This is wonderful music.

Enrique Granados - La Mira De La Maja - Victoria De Los Angeles, Gerald Moore

Good Lord, could she ever sing, could he ever accompany.

La Maja de Goya: Ana María Sánchez soprano, Enrique Pérez de Guzmán Piano

I ran across this recording of the most famous of the group of songs a few years back. She's very, very good but his accompaniment is the best I've heard on this song.

Victoria de los Angeles "La maja y el ruiseñor" Goyescas

Philarmonia Orchestra. Anatole Fistonlardi conductor

Enrique Granados died far too young when the boat he was going back to Spain on was torpedoed and sunk during WWI.